SUPREME & CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 613/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 June 2024AY 2021-22Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the employer's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return and allow it if so. However, the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution was upheld in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 85,23,450/- made by the Assessing Officer for delayed deposit of PF and ESI. The assessee contended that the employer's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return and should be allowed as a deduction.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the disallowance of delayed deposits of PF and ESI was justified, particularly concerning the employer's contribution versus the employees' contribution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

order : June 24, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in making disallowance of Rs.85,23,450/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposits of PF.

2. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) ought not to have made any disallowance in respect of delayed deposit of PF the same having been deposited before the due date of furnishing of the return of income.

3. For that the disallowance of Rs.85,23,450/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of PF was wrong and uncalled for.

4. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance of A.O.”

Assessment Year: 2021-22 Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →